1-Attachment 12 - Method of Approach.pdf

Request for Proposal

Solicitation No. BPM006379

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

Solicitation Attachment – Method of Approach | Revision No. 1 | Revised 11-22

Attachment 12 – Method of Approach

The Offeror shall provide a narrative response to each question that demonstrates their understanding of the Scope of Work requirements and describes the company’s overall method of approach for providing the Service(s) stated in this Solicitation. If there is a question that is not applicable to the Services required by the Scope of Work, you may mark it “N/A”. The narrative should not contain language used for marketing purposes.

Offeror shall provide a response either after each question or in a separate document entitled: “Attachment 12 - Method of Approach.” If a separate document is used, please clearly designate each section and double-check to ensure that each question has been answered. If any information provided is considered CONFIDENTIAL by Offeror, the information must be specifically included in the Confidential Information Designation Attachment and related documentation to be assessed for confidential treatment under A.A.C. R2-7-103. Response to Method of Approach shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Question 1: How would your approach for a project differ working for a very small community or utility as opposed to a medium or large city or utility?

Offeror Response:

The initial approach would be similar for each type of community. RCAC conducts an in-person or virtual meeting to meet, listen, and learn about the community’s needs. Upon completing the interview, the RCAC team develops and submits a “Discovery Document” to the community to confirm that we captured everything they shared during the interview. Upon their confirmation that the information is correct, RCAC conducts a Technical, Managerial, and Financial (TMF) Capacity Assessment. The TMF Assessment identifies the community's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvements. With the Discovery Document and TMF Assessment complete, we then develop a Community Work Plan and identify the project tasks, the person(s) responsible for completing the tasks, the project schedule and a group of stakeholders necessary to meet the community’s needs.

When working with very small communities, RCAC focuses on helping the community build local capacity. Typical tasks for small communities include training the Board of Directors on Basic Board Rules and Responsibilities, basic budget development and management, the development of a regulatory compliance calendar which includes compliance reporting dates, and the development of Rules and Regulations which provide the governance systems for the community.

When working with medium to large communities, RCAC works with the communities to develop an asset inventory to include an analysis of the remaining useful life and the cost to replace aging assets. This analysis is integrated into a six-year revenue analysis to determine revenue and reserve needs. Ultimately, we help the community develop an operating budget with sound operating and debt capacity ratios. This operating budget becomes the foundation and integration of an operation plan which uses reserves to replace short-lived assets and the debt capacity to secure state and federal funding to address larger infrastructure needs.

Offeror shall respond to question #2, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

5 - Design of water system improvements 7 - Drinking water permit applications (e.g., ATC, AOC, APP, AZPDES) 11- Preparing Corrosion Control Assessments & Treatment Recommendations

Question 2: What is your process when designing and permitting a drinking water treatment system? How would you approach the design & permitting of a treatment system for a small public water system? Describe the steps that you take to select the best treatment technology.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Offeror Response:

While RCAC does not employ Professional Engineers, we have staff with more than 20 years of experience in engineering consulting.

This experience encompasses every aspect of helping communities develop and replace their infrastructure, beginning with funding for planning, design and construction through the project close-out. This process includes:

• Interface with the engineering team during the planning phase to ensure that the community’s needs are represented in the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER).

• With a PER in hand, help the community secure funding for the project's design.

• Upon securing funding for design, interface with the engineering team to ensure that the design of the project meets the community’s needs but is not overdesigned.

• Once the design is approved by the community and regulatory agencies, assist in Bid Administration, Construction

Management, Construction oversight and Project Close-Out.

Please find further details on our approach to selecting the best treatment methodology under Scenario 1 at the end of this section.

In addition, RCAC currently provides project management services to communities and funding agencies under the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) Program in California. As a Project Manager, RCAC works collaboratively with engineering consultants, funding programs and communities to ensure that projects are completed within the budget and on schedule.

Question 3: How will you ensure your proposed solution to the assigned task is practical, cost-effective, and sustainable for the small water system?

Offeror Response:

RCAC’s approach when working with community water systems is focused on helping them to provide their customers with safe drinking water at the most affordable rate. To achieve this goal, we leverage RCAC’s 45 plus years of extensive experience with rural water systems. Our team is comprised of a diverse group of individuals who live and work in rural communities giving them a deep understanding of the challenges unique to these small systems. From this perspective, we work with communities to build local capacity so that they have the localized resources needed to solve these challenges. From this point, we introduce them to the external resources available to maintain regulatory compliance and to access the funding they need to replace aging infrastructure and sustain operations long term.

Offeror shall respond to question #4, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

5 - Design of water system improvements 7 - Drinking water permit applications (e.g., ATC, AOC, APP, AZPDES) 11- Preparing Corrosion Control Assessments & Treatment Recommendations

Question 4: When designing a treatment system that modifies water chemistry, how do you ensure this treatment won’t cause or exacerbate other water quality problems?

Offeror Response:

Not applicable.

Questions 5: How will you ensure that project(s) stays on schedule and is(are) completed on-time as per the task order offer/award?

If a project is not on schedule, describe what steps will be taken to get the project back on track?

If your team is backed up or unavailable to finish a job, describe what steps will be taken to get the project delivered on time?

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

If your subcontractor is falling behind stated deliverable, describe what steps will be taken to get the project on track and delivered on time?

Offeror Response:

RCAC has more than 45 years of experience in implementing a wide range of community projects, including projects with utilities and boards. Any project with multiple stakeholders has inherent layers of decision makers, and at times, contrasting viewpoints or preferences. RCAC begins each project by identifying key stakeholders and providing them with a review of the problem and how the project will address it. This initial meeting provides a project overview and outlines timeframe constraints and necessary milestones.

The project team will establish preferred communication methods between RCAC and the community, and schedule regular check-ins.

Communication methods can include telephone calls, email and in-person meetings. RCAC uses a Community Work Plan document that serves as a pseudo contract and lists key contacts, project objectives and scheduled meetings. Projects with predominantly remote interactions can sometimes lose momentum. When this occurs, RCAC staff provides increased in-person attention through site visits, and may recraft tasks into smaller, more easily achieved components, which can help to move a project forward. RCAC also has qualified team members in nine western states that may be called upon when bandwidth is low. Prior approval will be requested if outside team members are needed.

Question 6: Describe your company’s review process to ensure that technical documents are complete and accurate prior to submission to ADEQ. What documents can ADEQ review to verify if the review was completed? If ADEQ finds an issue, who, other than the PM, is the point of contact for resolution?

Offeror Response:

RCAC provides the following technical documents as a part of our services:

• Asset inventories

• Financial analysis

• Five-year revenue projections

• Operation and maintenance plans

• Emergency response plans

• Level I and Level II Assessments

Prior to submitting these documents to ADEQ and/or a community water system, the RCAC team member working on the document reviews it with their direct supervisor or one of their colleagues to ensure that the quality of the content provided in the document is accurate. If ADEQ receives an unsatisfactory document from RCAC, ADEQ can contact the Program Manager to discuss any concerns. If ADEQ is not satisfied with the Program Manager’s response they can contact the Director of the Environmental Services department.

Question 7: Describe a time where obstacles faced during a project resulted in a change to your methodology of approach. What were the obstacles, the impact to the project and what did you do to overcome them?

Offeror Response:

In 2020 RCAC assisted San Simon DWID to secure a Search Grant from USDA to complete an initial Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to address an Administrative Compliance Order for the exceedance of fluoride in their drinking water. Upon completion of the PER, RCAC worked with San Simon to secure funding from WIFA for project design and funding from USDA RD for project construction.

While funding and design for the project were successful, the bid administration phase of the project presented an obstacle. Only one contractor submitted a bid proposal, and the bid was approximately $3 million dollars over budget. During this time, San Simon’s only water supply well started to cavitate, causing clays from around the well casing to enter the water column, the water storage tank and distribution system.

In response, RCAC convened a meeting with San Simon, the engineering consultant and ADEQ to mitigate issues with the well and develop a new strategy for the project. To address the cavitation of the well, RCAC worked with San Simon to secure funding to

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) purchase hauled water and to procure the services of a well driller to camera the well. While these actions resulted in short-term relief;

they were only a band-aid to the larger issues. Water hauling was much too expensive for San Simon, a disadvantaged and Colonia community, and results from the camera work were inconclusive due to the large amount of turbidity in the well.

Undeterred, RCAC convened meetings with USDA RD, NAD Bank and WIFA with the goal of securing additional funding for the project. San Simon is located just one-mile past NAD Bank’s service boundary from the U.S. and Mexican border area and therefore was not eligible for their funding and WIFA was unable to provide additional funding beyond the funding they provided for the design. That left only USDA-RD, who was willing to provide additional funding, however they wanted an amendment to the PER, and due to their funding cycle, could not provide funding until their next funding cycle which was at least six months away.

RCAC also reached out to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to discuss American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding that the State of Arizona needed to spend as soon as possible. RCAC submitted a funding request of $2M to cover the cost overrun during the bid process and $1M to drill a new water supply well. Unbeknownst to RCAC, ADEQ similarly requested funding from the State of Arizona for ARPA funds for the project. While the ARPA funds through EDF never materialized, ADEQ did secure ARPA funds to cover the cost overruns for the fluoride treatment project and funding to drill a new water supply well.

Offeror shall respond to scenario #1, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

4 - Construction Administration & Construction Management 5 - Design of water system improvements 7 - Drinking water permit applications 8 - Funding Assistance 9 - Legal assistance (e.g., forming corporate status, corporate documents) 10- Median Household Income Surveys 12 - Preparing Environmental Documents/Archeological Surveys 13 - Preparing Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER) 14 - Rate studies, rate reviews, rate cases 16 - System Evaluations 19 - Water Quality Compliance Options

Scenario 1: A small, rural public water system has multiple water quality issues. There are 20 current connections;

the customers are low income and/or retirees. All the homes are on septic systems. The system consists of one well (located within the floodway of a major river), an elevated storage tank and distribution system.

The water system has maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances for uranium. In addition, chloride, sulfate, total hardness and total dissolved solids are well above the secondary MCLs. Sampling of private wells in the area indicated better water quality may be found away from the river. Outline at least three alternatives to address the water quality issues that are cost effective and sustainable for this very small water system. Provide your recommendation for the best alternative for the system.

For your recommendation include the following information for this scenario:

A bullet list of tasks that your firm would conduct to address the water quality issues and implement a solution. The tasks should be presented in the order they would be conducted. Each task should include the purpose of the task (e.g., why are you doing it? What information will be obtained in doing the task? What other information would be included in your summary recommendation report to ADEQ?

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Offeror Response (limit response for scenario #1 to two (2) pages):

RCAC assumes that a median household income (MHI) is not required, since the scenario has already defined that this is a low-income community. If the retirees elevate the community MHI above the state’s MHI, RCAC would conduct a MHI study to confirm whether the community qualifies as a disadvantaged community.

• Secure funding from USDA-RD or ADEQ to perform a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)

• Help the community procure the services of an engineering consultant for the purpose of working on the PER

• Work with the community and the engineering consultant to complete the PER o During the PER phase, assist the community and the consultant identify three alternatives to address the water quality issues the community is facing o When preparing the alternatives, evaluate the following criteria against each alternative:

Capital costs Operational costs Life Cycle Cost and Net Present Value Evaluation Hydraulic Analysis Safe Drinking Water/Violations/Health Benefits Certified Operator Requirements/Ease of Operations Permitting and Land Requirements (easements and rights-of-way) Construction Challenges Public acceptance and public benefit Environmental Mitigation Sustainability Considerations Likelihood of Success

• Alternatives o Uranium Treatment System

Until a full water quality analysis is complete, it’s difficult to say that a uranium treatment facility will address all water quality issues

Pending water quality, the operational costs to operate and maintain a uranium treatment facility can be expensive

• A uranium treatment facility will require an insulated and heated building which requires a substantial land footprint

• Pending ownership of the land, it may have to be environmentally cleared

• Additional water quality concerns can accelerate how quicky the uranium treatment media is spent

– media replacement is expensive

• A uranium treatment facility has technical components such as SCADA, pressure tanks, and blending which may require a higher level of certified operator

• Capital costs are expensive

• Operational costs are expensive o Drill New Well and Blend Using data from the water quality from private wells, select and secure a site to drill an exploratory well Design the well (depth, size and production) based on the needs of the community Drill the well to a depth based on recommendations from private well data and from the recommendations from a hydrogeologic report Drill exploratory well and evaluate well cuttings at 10-foot intervals against the geological information identified in the hydrogeologic report Identify depth water is encountered and obtain a general sense of water production Install a test pump that has a slightly higher production rate than the final pump needed to provide water to the community

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

To confirm water production, conduct at a minimum a 72-hour pump test, measure water production (gallons per minutes) and static drawdown (time it takes for the water column to decrease)

Measure how quickly the well recovers back to static water level Obtain water samples from the well and test for water quality constituents identified in the hydrogeological report Send water quality samples to state certified lab Evaluate water quality results to ensure they meet safe drinking water standards Develop blending plan utilizing water quality results from the exploratory well and the existing water supply well to determine the percentage of blending required to bring water quality from existing well into safe drinking water standards.

Complete final design of well Complete well to full design Drilling and equipping a new water supply well and blending with the existing well is likely to have a competitive capital cost to a uranium treatment facility. Operational cost for the two wells will be significantly lower than the uranium treatment facility o POU Filters Capital costs would be moderate compared to the uranium treatment facility and new water supply well Operational costs are anticipated to be higher than the cost to operate the well, but lower than the operational costs of the uranium treatment facility The largest challenge with POU filters is the fact that they are installed within the household The community water system has two options for the replacement of the filters:

• Obtain a water users agreement from the homeowner to access the home and replace the filter or

• Train the homeowner to replace the filter. The certified operator needs to evaluate any potential liability associated with this option.

A second challenge is finding a POU system which can treat all the water quality concerns from the existing well

From a sustainability and resilience perspective, RCAC would recommend drilling a new Water Supply Well.